Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Kelly, 98-7288 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-7288 Visitors: 73
Filed: Mar. 17, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7288 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT ANTHONY KELLY, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CR-94-43, CA-98-97-R) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpubli
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7288 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT ANTHONY KELLY, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CR-94-43, CA-98-97-R) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Anthony Kelly, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Anthony Kelly, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Kelly, Nos. CR-94-43; CA-98-97-R (W.D. Va. June 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer